an even better laugh
how’d i neglect this gem from a supposed expert on the US constitution:
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
just because it’s funny to follow that crap with the very words of “the framers”:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
so through who knows what dastardly sleight of dick, “shall not be infringed” becomes the mock incredulous “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons”. oh, egads, señor milquetoast.
i wonder… just what the fuck this dumbass thinks the entire constitution is if not precisely an avowed choice by the “the framers” “to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate” fuckall. the guy’s an overt psychopath, talking such drivel at sharp odds with the very law document he swore to support. he’s a walking demonstration of the veracity of john acton’s note on what happens with assholes and power.
sadly, the constitution was a power grab, however subtle, but WTF — let’s not have the “supreme” court show us the evil behind the curtain. allow me some delusional dignity! leave me to roll in the grass, comforted by earnest lies.